Occupy Ron Paul

The retiring congressman's revolution wasn't just about the Republican Party.

Every four years, the Radisson Hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire serves as a hub for national media activity ahead of the state’s presidential primary. On January 8, 2012, journalists milling about the hotel could occasionally be overheard snickering at the strange melange of street protesters that had flooded Manchester’s downtown area: Ron Paul people, Occupy people, and assorted miscreants. These categories were not mutually exclusive.

Across the street from the hotel, at Veterans Park, the loosely-knit Occupy New Hampshire collective had established their encampment–a kind of outdoor public festival. The first person I encountered there was 21 year-old Manchester resident John Cullen, who wore a green armband signaling affiliation with OccupyNH (though of course there was no formal “membership”). Cullen told me he’d recently been pepper-sprayed by police at the Port of Oakland during a nationwide day of demonstrations. “I was actually trying to get out of there at that point,” he said; by coincidence, his family had been visiting members of their church in the Oakland area, and while Cullen supported Occupy, he wasn’t particularly eager to get doused with painful chemicals for the cause.

When I mentioned I’d be attending a Ron Paul campaign event at the University of New Hampshire in Durham later that evening, Cullen smiled and unzipped his jacket to reveal a classic “Ron Paul reEVOLution” T-shirt. In fact, he announced, it was only several hours prior that he’d participated in a group “sign-wave” outside Murphy’s Taproom, a major gathering point for Ron Paul people in the area. “When Ron Paul gets the Occupiers on his side,” he beamed, “Ron Paul is not going to be stopped. You can’t stop him.”

Cullen had wanted to go to the UNH rally but lacked transportation. So I offered to give him a ride. Traffic that night was surprisingly horrendous; we missed the first bit of Paul’s speech, barely making it in time to hear the congressman remark on Iran sanctions and ask the crowd how they would like it if one day Chinese drones started bombing American targets. Afterwards, hundreds of people waited in line for the candidate, who seemed perfectly happy to oblige all those who desired photos. Cullen waited in this queue and later relayed his interaction with Ron Paul. “You’re a beautiful man,” he reported telling him as they posed for the camera. Ron Paul then inquired about the green armband, and Cullen replied that it stood for Occupy New Hampshire. “Thank you for participating in the democratic process,” Paul commented, cheerfully.

—

On the very first night of the Zuccotti Park occupation in September 2011, when participants had scant conception of what Occupy would soon become, Ron Paul people showed up and argued with Marxists about whether they were entitled to stay. They stayed. One might say Ron Paul people played a more integral role to the inception of Occupy than conventional Democrats or liberals, many of whom scorned the inscrutable demonstration in its first weeks. The journalist Arun Gupta, who co-founded the Occupied Wall Street Journal in New York City and later embarked on a tour of Occupy sites across America, told me he’d see clusters of Ron Paul supporters and various libertarians virtually everywhere he went. Such folks “tended to be better represented and integrated in red states,” Gupta said–Cheyenne, Boise, Tulsa, Little Rock, Louisville, Charleston, etc.–while in “blue states” they typically formed enclaves that were “tolerated” by the wider group.

A fair number of Occupy people in those days either had no opinion of or actively disliked Ron Paul, but the undercurrents of support were nonetheless noticeable, ranging from individuals who would wield official campaign paraphernalia to others who would concede private support only for narrow aspects of Ron Paul’s platform upon intense questioning. One would more reliably come across vocal Ron Paul supporters at Occupy events than vocal Obama supporters. It was not lost on the Zuccotti Park crowd, for instance, that Ron Paul personally expressed a measure of support for the movement earlier than most any other national U.S. politician–aside from Sen. Bernie Sanders or Rep. Dennis Kucinich. (Gary Johnson, then seeking the GOP nomination, made an appearance at Zuccotti Park and had a generally positive impression.)

Signage bearing the Paul-derived “End the Fed” slogan was common around Lower Manhattan during those frenzied weeks. Stories of Paul-Occupy fusion emerged from around the country: in Los Angeles, a Ron Paul activist successfully added an anti-Federal Reserve amendment to OccupyLA’s working manifesto; an ultimately ill-fated “Ron Paul Tent” was established for a time at OccupyPhilly. Ryan Hirsch, one of the lead Occupy New Hampshire organizers I met last January, described himself more-or-less as a disaffected progressive and was unsure if he’d bother voting in the GOP primary. (Hirsch was the individual pictured here who at a November 2011 campaign event in New Hampshire handed Barack Obama a typewritten note. “Mr. President,” it read, “Over 4,000 peaceful protesters have been arrested…”) But Hirsch ultimately did vote, for Ron Paul. Not because he agreed with everything Ron Paul has ever said, but because Paul spoke on so many critical issues that other candidates systematically neglected: civil liberties, drug prohibition, the military-industrial complex, criminal justice/police problems, Wikileaks, internet freedom.

In October 2011, Paul told journalist Brian Doherty that he viewed the nascent Occupy Wall Street movement as a “tremendous opportunity,” while adding that “it is not necessarily advantageous to overemphasize alliance with people the conservative voters don’t really want to talk about.” Indeed, at the time Occupy was the subject of much derision in right-wing media, with outlets such as Breitbart.com and the Daily Caller propagating endless incendiary anti-Occupy memes, often involving sexual exploitation or human excrement. These were widely circulated on the web and picked up by the talk-radio/Fox News nexus. Republican presidential candidates eagerly piled on: Mitt Romney declared the movement “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich sneered–to the biggest applause of the night at a Frank Luntz presidential forum–that Occupiers ought to “Go get a job, right after you take a bath.” Ron Paul indicated he was put off by that remark. “I’m not likely to be the one to say, well, ‘Why don’t you get a bath and go get a job and quit crybabying.’ No, I don’t like that at all.”

Paul was probably correct insofar as public outreach to Occupy at the time would have been disadvantageous if his aim was to court registered Iowa Republicans. But Ron Paul’s “affinity” with the movement, as he described it, manifested from the outset. In September 2011 we spoke after a campaign event at a New Hampshire old folks’ home. Some supporters of his, I mentioned, had shown up to Zuccotti Park and were spreading the message of liberty, so to say. “If they were demonstrating peacefully,” Paul reacted, “and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed–I would say, good!” Paul drew out his inflection on the word “good,” as if to add–“and it’s about darn time!” In subsequent weeks, he’d go on to speak favorably about Occupy in a variety of venues: rebutting Herman Cain’s criticism during televised debates, extolling the principle of civil disobedience at the National Press Club and elsewhere. As the 2012 campaign dwindled, he started invoking the problem of “police violence” more regularly–of intimate concern to Occupiers–and emphasizing his commitment to “non-coercion,” which is a central tenet of Occupy’s operational ethos.

That a candidate who routinely inveighed against the military-industrial complex, “corporate fascism,” civil liberties infringements, and the George W. Bush administration’s lies about Iraq while championing Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, and the Occupy movement wound up attracting support from elements of the American left is not terribly surprising. But idiosyncratic right-wing elements of the Ron Paul coalition were often quite exercised about those same subjects. What this crossover dynamic suggests about the modern American political landscape remains largely unexplored.

All of these unorthodox elements may be forsaken in coming months, however, as the “Liberty Movement” orients itself to an existence without Ron Paul as its congressional standard-bearer. He retires from office on January 3. Those within the Ron Paul apparatus who insist on merging into the Republican Party infrastructure risk abandoning the legions of young people whose political consciousnesses were enlivened by Ron Paul but who refuse to countenance the machinations and deceptions associated with party politicking. They may have once been willing to work with Republicans to help Ron Paul, but those volunteers were always more “in” the GOP as a matter of practical necessity than “of” it.

During his farewell address to Congress last month, Paul asked, “Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008, and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?” He then cited the “gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich” as among “the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society,” echoing one of Occupy’s central themes–income equality.

Ever the adept politician, Ron Paul understands where public opinion is heading, and he knows how to tailor an argument. He thus wisely plans to continue focusing on youth outreach in post-congressional life. Perhaps the preponderance of eccentric characters in Ron Paul’s own flock made him more inclined to show the maligned Occupy movement a modicum of respect, back when doing so was not an especially advisable tactic. This may not have thrilled members of his campaign operation, but long-term, the goodwill Ron Paul engendered among some unlikely constituencies may prove worth the price.

Michael Tracey is a writer based in New York. His work has appeared in The Nation, Reason, Mother Jones, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 14 comments

14 Responses to Occupy Ron Paul

Too often you hear people supportive of Ron Pauls brand of politics suggesting a more GOP focused strategy, but as this article points out doing so will alienate vital voting groups. The Republican party is in decline because of its insularity, making itself unable to make decisions within its deafening echo chamber, all in the hopes of maintaining a losing coalition of big money and small minds. I see no reason why the liberty movement should give up on its more ideologically diverse elements only to gain favor of a party that is in decline due to its lack of ideological diversity. Why bend over backwards just to play party politics in a party that’s playing to lose? The only way the Ron Paul camp can remake the GOP is if it stands as a stark alternative to what we have today, because what we have today wont last too many tomorrows.

This issue is most strongly illustrated by Rand Paul, who is taking advantage of someone by being dishonest, the only question is who. While I believe hes taking advantage of his libertarian supporters, some say hes really just pulling the wool over the eyes of the GOP, as some sort of stealth savior. The problem with this is that even if Rand can make political gains this way, he does so with considerable loss for the Ron Paul Revolution. Rand Paul doesn’t just corrupt the message of liberty, he delivers that message in ways that make many voters feel alienated, if not threatened.

My first impression of Rand Paul was an interview with Rachel Maddow that she steered to touhy topic of discrimination, and rather than convey a message of personal liberty and the growth of inclusive culture being a better alternative than government intervention, he basically conflated choosing to carry a gun with being born black. Well, you cant choose what color you are born, and he came across looking like a racist prick. How far will that image take you modern American politics? Personally I think it will take you no where, at least not beyond certain districts in KY and the like.

In national politics the label of racist will cost you, at least if that label sticks. Look at how twenty year old newsletters where used against the “racist” Ron Paul. Personally I think the main reason that the “R” word worked against Ron was the fact that it seems to describe (rightly and sometimes wrongly) so much of the Republican partys worst elements, and too often that seems to includes Rand. Why would the liberty movement hitch its ride to all that? Why not use whatever diversity it has, ideological, racial, or otherwise to build a coalition that might actually win?

Paul’s support for the Occupy movement was just the man living his beliefs.

It was terribly disheartening that Paul seemed to get more support from those who traditionally supported the other side than his own party. But that is where the Repubs are now. The Repub dismiss anyone who doesn’t toe the party line choosing to build walls as opposed to bridges.

Honestly I can’t agree with everything Ron Paul says, just like any other politician, but what I will say is that he is consistent and genuine.

As I came into political consciousness after the eight years of neo-con Bush era politics, which by the way are very popular in my parents home, I found that I mostly aligned myself with Ron Paul. I voted for him in the 2008 primary as well as the 2012, much to the chagrin of my parents, it was ‘a vote wasted.’ I never thought so.

As issues such as constitutional civil liberties, the military industrial complex, and our foreign policy are being debated I have proudly found myself without a real home in terms of politics. Sadly I only had Congressman Paul and his enthusiasm keeping me hopeful. Now that he is retiring I am sad, but I am also excited. With his retirement so many news articles have surfaced about how much he has changed the game and invigorated youth that are in a political stupor, this gives me great hope for the future.

Not only do I believe that it is understood that Ron Paul is not an anomaly, but I also believe that others will see his track record and his growing base of support and pick up the banner. His son has started to get some traction but I am still not sold that he will be as solid as his father.

Lastly, in regards to the comment in the article about folding into the republican infrastructure, I have to say that the risk of losing those recently awoken young people is very real. I am a fan of losing what we have as our identity, and I will not adopt the pet policies of the republican party simply because they wanted to appease me by adding a few of my ideas to their platform.

Frankly a Ron Paul ReEVOLution, the way I originally had hoped for, was a third party, a more viable one, a more genuine one, one that is less naive but willing to take a stand. Now I understand the barriers to such an endeavor, but I think the benefits would be nationwide, and yes we may not have a president for decades but we could most likely snap up some congressional seats from both sides. They could count on my vote.

Now that Ron Paul is retiring, I wish him the best, and I hope that those that fell in love with his forthright style and his consistent stance on policy would not fall away from involvement; but rather shape the next generation of leaders.

We Dr. Ron Paul supporters are inside and outside The GOP and inside and outside The Tea Party.

We are aware of agendist attempts to marginalize Dr.Ron Paul and marginalize perhaps his greatest supporter,Dr.Rand Paul.

Dr.Ron Paul,
” When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”

Personally, as a paleocon disgruntled with the GOP and a Paul supporter in the primaries, I was ashamed that the OWS folks tried to align themselves with Paul. He had enough of an uphill battle trying to convince modern conservatives to be principled without having to be tainted by them. That is not to say that every single person involved fit the stereotype but we should all remember the images of the Occupy Oakland mob riots. Why should Paul, and any successor, want to be associated with that?

Of course big corporations are not saintly, especially in the effect they have on the middle class. The bail-outs were utterly shameful. The middle class is being devoured. Yet, what advantage could come from the likes of the OWS folks as allies?

At the same time, most people in the GOP were looking down their noses, Paul Supporters went to Occupy with the idea of educating folks on the concepts of sound money and liberty. A noble effort IMO. I wonder how many eyes they opened.

Thomas Naylor, (Requiem im Pacem) just passed away recently. He was brains behind the Vermont independence movement and also is a good example of how the tribalism of American politics frustrates those who supported Ron Paul because they were looking to liberate themselves from such tribalism. Naylor’s were left-libertarians but because he just happened to invite members of the League of the South to his secession conferences, Vermont liberals brought out the old smear brush to him (racist, anti-Semitie) which only divided the movement. Likewise, any association on the Left by Occupy or any other group to Ron Paul and many liberals would have been all to happy to wash their hands of Occupy because of the “newsletters”. Of course, anyone on the Right who had kind word for Occupy would have been smeared too. Paul got it from both sides which is what made him interesting. Rand may succeed where Ron failed but I’m afraid it won’t have the same transformative effects on conservative politics and ideology as Ron’s nomination would.

“[Ron Paul supporters] may have once been willing to work with Republicans to help Ron Paul, but those volunteers were always more “in” the GOP as a matter of practical necessity than “of” it.”

This is true only in a limited sense. Yes, the Ron Paul “movement” was never “in” the national Republican Party in the sense of having power over the party apparatus. But that doesn’t mean the Ron Paul ideology isn’t naturally consonant with the party’s core constituencies.

The GOP’s voter base consists almost exclusively of wealthy people and rural whites, and Ron Paul’s base of support came primarily from a younger subset of this latter group. It’s true that these voters have a different perspective than their elders — they don’t know what it’s like to not be in the middle of costly wars, and they’ve never lived in an America dominated by social conservatism. But they live similar lives to older people in their communities and so their politics shares a similar ideological underpinning.

It’s a common assumption that Ron Paul lost because his positions were anathema to older Republicans, but this isn’t clearly the case. Before the Fox News machine campaigned in earnest against him (primarily by lying about the threat posed by Iran), Ron Paul was quickly gaining ground among older voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. In the weeks before the Iowa caucus, Paul double his performance with older GOP primary voters in that state to the 25% range. This wouldn’t have been possible if Ron Paul and the party’s core were actually irreconcilable.

And why wouldn’t Paul be popular with rural whites? His paleoconservatism has long enjoyed a deep vein of support with this group. It’s not as if rural whites want their sons and daughters to perish in foreign conflicts; their support for war results from propaganda about the true dangers posed by frightening people overseas. Similarly, most rural whites have no love for big business, but the national party has repurposed their reverence for individual verve to the benefit of established wealth.

Ron Paul will never be President. But he represented a vein of political sensibilities that Republican politicians will need to tap if they’re going to recover from the party’s recent delirium.

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He panders to the left with his anti military-interventionist and end the drug wars stance, while pandering to the right with his Norquist style small government pro-corporate end the Fed free market stance. But despite his ‘for the people’ rhetoric, significantly, Rep. Paul abstained from voting on the two of the most important pieces of Legislation respecting the rights of We the People in recent times, NDAA and CISPA. Ron Paul is retrograde all the way. He rejects Reality in favor of some fantasy America of Ayn Rand.

What he really wants is an America of 1875 – all rugged individualists fending for themselves, bartering with the local doctor, buying goods with gold backed US Treasury currency, stringently limited government, and everybody free, free, free. No nanny state health care, social services, publically funded schools, environmental protections, postal service, interstate highways, air traffic control systems, civil rights, national parks, welfare or social security, etc., ad nauseum. Why? Because none of that is in the Constitution, that’s why. And if the founders didn’t anticipate it, then it’s big government interfering with our ‘liberty’.

Ron Paul is a Randian social Darwinist who believes property rights trump human rights. He’d sell off the National Parks to the highest bidder, a totally insane idea. He gut the EPA and allow corporations to self-regulate and let property rights dictate environmental problems. And then how many Fukishimas would we see?

For Paul, America is an every man for himself social Darwinistic state based on Ayn Rand’s utterly discredited great man fantasy. Women know their place and men are strong and capable. Otherwise you should just die because real Americans aren’t physically disabled or mentally incapacitated and real doctors know, just as they knew in the good old days, that such babies are smothered at birth so as not to be a burden on society. That is the American of Ron Paul.

Great article about a beautiful person. We will never see another Ron Paul in our lifetime. No one will ever come close to his 30-plus year legacy of loyalty to his principles, his ideals and to the American people.

Those who bashed Ron Paul will now do so through his son (oh, look — they’ve already started! lol). The reason I immediately fell in love with Ron Paul was that I saw he was 10 steps ahead of everyone and he thought outside the box, outside the status quo. He didn’t care what people thought and he’s never since disappointed me. I am so happy he will continue teaching!

I am a leftist (libertarian socialist/anarchist) who supported both Occupy and Ron Paul. For me, foreign policy and civil liberties trumped the other issues. Of course, the hardest issue to reconcile were the completely divergent economic philosophies (at least, on the surface). On one hand, an Austrian, on the other, Marxists/anarchists/Keynesians. I felt that a President Paul would not be able to get much of his economic plan passed; but if he did, and it was a disastrous as the left predicted, then it should crash the economy and lead to a social revolution of the sort hoped for by Bakunin and Kropotkin.